Understanding Curtis Linton’s Connections to Project Washington

Curtis Linton has said that I am misrepresenting his connections to data centers. I take that seriously.

So rather than speculate about anyone’s motives, I want to lay out the relationships that are part of the public record.

None of these relationships proves how Curtis will vote. None suggests anyone has done anything improper. But they do show the interests surrounding one of the biggest development issues facing New Castle County.

Voters can decide for themselves what those relationships mean.

There is nothing wrong with Curtis advocating for good-paying union jobs. That's a legitimate interest, and it's exactly what we should expect a labor leader to fight for.

But a County Council member has a different responsibility. Council members have to balance the interests of labor, developers, businesses, taxpayers, neighboring communities and the environment—and ultimately make decisions in the public interest.

That's why these relationships matter.

The question isn't whether Curtis is allowed to have these connections. It's what happens when his responsibility to residents conflicts with the interests of the organizations and professional networks he's closely connected to.

I don't think I should answer that question for voters. I think voters deserve to understand the relationships and decide for themselves.

Curtis Linton is the Business Manager and Secretary-Treasurer of LIUNA Local 199 .

Local 199 is also one of 20 construction unions that signed a Project Labor Agreement with Project Washington , the massive data center proposed near Delaware City.

That means Curtis doesn't simply represent workers who generally support construction jobs. The union he leads has a direct economic interest in the construction of Project Washington.

Project Washington has promoted its labor agreement as a major benefit of the project, citing thousands of union construction jobs.

That is not a criticism of Local 199. Good-paying union jobs matter.

It is simply an important interest for voters to understand.

Local 199 is part of a much larger coalition of construction unions involved with Project Washington.

The Delaware Building and Construction Trades Council became one of the project's most vocal supporters as the county debated new regulations for data centers.

During that same period, Building Trades leadership became active in New Castle County Council politics.

Building Trades President James Maravelias publicly promoted Curtis Linton's candidacy and encouraged union members to give Curtis the maximum allowable individual contribution.

Around the same time, Maravelias announced that another union official would challenge Councilman Dave Carter, who was leading the effort to establish New Castle County's first data-center regulations.

When discussing the possibility of national Building Trades support for those campaigns, Maravelias specifically referenced the scale of the roughly $8 billion Project Washington development.

That doesn't tell us why anyone supports Curtis.

It does establish that the labor coalition with a direct economic interest in Project Washington was also working to elect candidates to New Castle County Council while the county was debating how data centers should be regulated.

On November 4, 2025, Curtis spoke before New Castle County Council during the debate over Ordinance 25-101, the county's proposed data-center regulations.

He began:

“I'm here to say, I do not support the ordinance.”

Curtis did not say that data centers should have no regulations. In fact, he said he believed there should be guardrails.

But he also criticized what he called “scare tactics,” questioned some of the information being used to justify the regulations, warned about turning away millions of dollars in tax revenue and specifically defended Starwood:

“We're about to turn away millions of tax dollars because someone, for some reason, has a disliking against Starwood or any data center.”

One of the major disputes surrounding the ordinance at that time was whether the county's new rules should apply to data-center projects that were already in the development pipeline.

That included Project Washington.

Curtis addressed that issue directly. He argued that the rules should apply going forward rather than changing the rules for projects already in the process.

That's an important distinction.

Project Washington was not an existing data center that had been operating for years. It was a proposed hyperscale development that had recently entered the county's development process. The scale was unprecedented: 1.2 gigawatts and roughly six million square feet.

And Project Washington is the same project on which Curtis's union, Local 199, has a Project Labor Agreement.

Curtis's stated policy position therefore aligned with a direct economic interest of the union he leads: new data-center rules should apply going forward rather than to projects already in the pipeline, including Project Washington.

That does not tell us why Curtis took that position.

It does tell us where the interests aligned.

See full meeting, or Curtis Linton's comment.

Curtis now describes his position by saying that he opposed an earlier version of Ordinance 25-101 but supported the final version.

There is some truth to that distinction, but the legislative history is more complicated.

Curtis's November 4 public comment was not on the original August ordinance. Council had already been working on the legislation for months, and the November meeting concerned Substitute No. 1 .

Over the following months, Council continued negotiating. Some substantive protections were weakened or modified before the final compromise passed unanimously as Substitute No. 3.

The treatment of pending projects was also resolved: the final ordinance did not require Project Washington and other projects already in the development pipeline to comply with the new rules.

That was consistent with the position Curtis had advocated in his November public comment.

Curtis says he supported that final compromise. I have not found a contemporaneous public statement from him supporting it, so I don't want to characterize his position beyond what we can document.

What we can document is this:

Curtis publicly opposed Substitute No. 1. He supported guardrails in principle while arguing that new rules should apply going forward rather than to pending projects. The final compromise ultimately excluded Project Washington and other pending projects from the new regulations. Curtis now says he supported that final version.

Those facts can coexist.

Curtis’s campaign manager is Matt Dougherty.

Dougherty’s day job is Executive Director of The Committee of 100 , a Delaware business organization focused heavily on economic development and land-use policy.

The Committee of 100 says its Economic Development Committee works with state, county and city officials to “assess and influence policies and legislation” affecting economic development.

Its Land Use Committee monitors legislation and government policies affecting development.

Several people involved in that policy work also have professional relationships to Project Washington.

Pamela Scott of Saul Ewing has represented Starwood Digital Ventures on Project Washington.

She is also a longtime participant in The Committee of 100 and serves on its Land Use and Economic Development committees.

Doug Eitelman of VanDemark & Lynch appeared publicly alongside Starwood’s CEO and attorney presenting Project Washington.

Eitelman also chairs The Committee of 100’s Land Use Committee and serves on its Environment & Energy Committee.

Randi Licciardello of PBF Energy serves on The Committee of 100’s Land Use and Environment & Energy committees.

PBF is connected through a subsidiary to the property on which Project Washington is proposed. Licciardello's professional work includes government and community relations.

These relationships do not mean The Committee of 100 is directing Project Washington or Curtis Linton’s campaign.

They establish something much simpler: people professionally involved with Project Washington participate in the same organization's land-use and development-policy work that Curtis's campaign manager oversees professionally.

Allen Strategies is a Delaware lobbying firm registered to represent interests on several sides of Project Washington, including:

• Starwood Capital Group , whose data-center platform is developing Project Washington;
• PBF Energy , connected to the Project Washington property; and
• the Delaware Building and Construction Trades Council , whose member unions have a labor agreement with the project.

Allen Strategies disclosed clients and lobbying records.

Allen Strategies has also contributed to Curtis Linton’s campaign.

A contribution does not tell us why someone gave money or how Curtis will vote.

The significance is not any single contribution. It is that many of these organizations and individuals operate within the same development ecosystem.

That part is up to voters.

There is nothing wrong with unions advocating for jobs. There is nothing improper about developers hiring attorneys, engineers or lobbyists. And participation in an organization like The Committee of 100 does not mean its members agree on every issue.

But these relationships matter when someone is asking voters to put them on the body responsible for regulating development in New Castle County.

The public record shows:

• Curtis leads a union with a direct economic interest in Project Washington.
• The broader Building Trades coalition supports Project Washington and has promoted Curtis’s candidacy.
• Curtis publicly opposed Substitute No. 1 to the county's data-center regulations.
• During that debate, he argued that new rules should apply going forward rather than to projects already in the pipeline, including Project Washington.
• The final ordinance ultimately excluded Project Washington and other pending projects from the new regulations.
• Curtis now says he supported that final compromise.
• His campaign manager runs an economic-development organization whose policy committees include people professionally involved with Project Washington.
• The same lobbying firm represents Starwood Capital Group, PBF Energy and the Delaware Building Trades.

Those facts don't tell us what Curtis thinks privately. They don't prove what motivates him. And they don't tell us how he will vote in the future.

They tell us where the interests are—and give us one real example of what happened when those interests intersected with a public-policy decision.

I think voters deserve to see that clearly and make their own judgment.